UKSG 2018 Breakout - (Book) Sprinting towards open publishing: developing strategy and tools to support digital scholarship - Ball and Logan
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•524 views
Libraries have an emerging role in advocating for and influencing the development of strategy, policy and infrastructure around digital scholarship and open publishing within their institutions. This case study will explore how we have approached this at institutional level by developing a strategic business plan for University senior management, and also on a practical level by supporting doctoral researchers to carry out a multidisciplinary Book Sprint to publish an open access monograph in four days, providing opportunities to engage with alternative approaches to disseminating scholarly work.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to UKSG 2018 Breakout - (Book) Sprinting towards open publishing: developing strategy and tools to support digital scholarship - Ball and Logan
Similar to UKSG 2018 Breakout - (Book) Sprinting towards open publishing: developing strategy and tools to support digital scholarship - Ball and Logan (20)
More from UKSG: connecting the knowledge community
More from UKSG: connecting the knowledge community (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
UKSG 2018 Breakout - (Book) Sprinting towards open publishing: developing strategy and tools to support digital scholarship - Ball and Logan
- 1. Developing strategy and tools to support digital scholarship Book sprinting towards Open Publishing Joanna Ball (@Joanna_ball) Bethany Logan (@Hey_Bethany)
- 2. • What does Open mean for libraries? • Open publishing at Sussex – a sprint or a marathon? • Our booksprint experience • Challenges and benefits of Open
- 3. Budapest Open Access Initiative Declaration: “…lay the foundation for uniting humanity in a common intellectual conversation and quest for knowledge” (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read) Burton (2009): “the Open Scholar … makes their intellectual projects and processes digitally visible and … invites and encourages ongoing criticism of their work and secondary uses of any or all parts of it--at any stage of its development” (http://www.academicevolution.com/2009/08/the-open-scholar.html) What does Open mean?
- 5. Changing a research culture
- 6. James Baker, Lecturer in Digital Humanities @j_w_baker “Universities should be creating opportunities, not setting rules”
- 7. • Improving infrastructure and interfaces to make Open more easy – ORCID, integrations between repositories • Establish Open as standard researcher behaviour through training and advocacy • Incentivise Open by supporting open initiatives from within the Library budget (as advocated by David W. Lewis: https://scholarlycommons.net/) How can libraries support a transition to an Open research culture?
- 9. What does your 2.5% look like? • Precedent has been set to fund wider infrastructure and to invest in innovative open business models • Financial constraints present an opportunity for radical reprioritisation in terms of budgets • Supporting (and funding) local and wider Open initiatives that align with institutional priorities
- 10. Sussex and Open publishing – sprint or marathon?
- 11. • Library Research Support team • Statement on Open Access • Isolated Open activity • Sussex Humanities Lab Warming up By Lance Cpl. Natalie Rostran (https://www.dvidshub.net/image/1057267) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
- 12. • Pressure from academic community • Increase in support for Open publishing within the sector • Position statement on Open publishing • Creation of Open publishing group Starting blocks https://www.flickr.com/photos/148686169@N02/36050635106/
- 14. Sussex…dares to be different Disruptive by design We will operate in an open environment and…enable access and share our research Sussex 2025 reimagines the pioneering spirit of the original purpose of the University
- 15. • Formulating the idea of what a Sussex “Press” would look like • Avoiding Skeuomorphism • Developing the infrastructure Into our stride https://www.flickr.com/photos/wwarby/4782204077
- 16. • Partnership – Library AND academic led • Bringing in the External Relations team A team approach https://www.flickr.com/photos/nostri-imago/5000121560
- 17. • Establishing a “Press” is a long- term strategic initiative • Continue to support short-term innovations to enable early career and doctoral researchers to experiment with Open Passing on the baton https://www.flickr.com/photos/bobthelomond/14854494665
- 19. • SAGE Research Hive Scholars • Research community events • Imperative to publish Sussex Research Hive
- 20. • Collaborative writing • Write and publish in days • Opportunities for PhDs and ECRs Book Sprint
- 21. • Logistics • Academic scope • The essentials On your marks
- 22. • Seven authors, four days • Writing on home • A formidable facilitator • Booktype software Get set
- 23. Day One • Concepts and ideas • Collective brain • Chapter outline Go
- 24. "Everybody sat at their computers and worked, this was serious! Litres and litres of coffee, and loads of discussions later, the first day was over.“ - Marian (booksprinter)
- 25. Going
- 26. Still going " On the last day there is silence. Messy tables and stares. Some have not slept at all." Marian (booksprinter)
- 27. Quick results The finished book is available on Sussex Research Online http://sro.sussex.ac. uk/68309/
- 28. • Creating something from nothing • Disciplinary differences • Unfamiliar workflow Hurdles
- 29. Going for gold
- 30. "[Is it] better to have a couple of articles in high-quality, reputable, peer-reviewed publications than many pieces of writing all over the internet? While there are excellent arguments for both these strategies, I feel that participating in the booksprint and contributing to an Open Access, online publication has been a really useful experience. My research has such interdisciplinary and wide appeal (who doesn’t love a good murder story?) that I am eager for opportunities to share it as widely as possible". – Alexa (Booksprinter)
- 31. How could open publishing benefit you as a researcher? Are there any risks for you as a researcher? Step into their (running) shoes How could open publishing benefit your organisation? Are there any risks for your organisation?
- 32. Time trial
Editor's Notes
- Welcome & intro to session and us Quick background on University of Sussex Founded in the 1960s – campus in the south downs just outside Brighton Medium sized research-intensive institution – about 1000 research staff, with teaching and research across the arts, humanities, social sciences and sciences
- This is an outline of what we’ll cover today Reflections of what open means for us as libraries and where we currently stand? Strategic case study on challenges of our open publishing initiative Beth will take us through a very practical case study of another open initiative, our booksprint We’re going to have a go at running our very own booksprint experience here and ask you to record your reflections on challenges and benefits of Open
- Librarians have always been advocates for OA – goes to the heart of our ethical principles – freedom of access to information And we have also seen only too closely the impact of rising serials prices on our budgets. Aims from the BOAI – back in 2002 – ambitious aims for OA - values-based political stance The quote from Gideon Burton demonstrates how this ideological position has been developed further by proponents of digital/open scholarship and takes open to a much more personal and individual level, as well as extending it much wider than Open Access to research outputs. It’s about Open practices and open values – visibility and transparency of research throughout the entire research process (Open is presented as a disruptive innovation – one which threatens the whole value chain of scholarly comms)
- Illustration of the work we were doing – advocacy – research as a public good Getting the word out there
- How did we move from these ambitious aims to this? Eg of compliancy decisions tree from LSE – but could be from any UK HE institution COmpliance is what OA now means in practice for many UK libraries – since the introduction of the RCUK and HeFCE OA policies
- Slide from Alison Muddit’s recent presentation at the Researcher to Reader Confernce showing an adapted Maslows Hierarchy of needs by Brian Nosek at the Center of Open Science Nested components required for culture change Development of data repositories to support Workflows to make it easier to be open Communities – an informal understanding of what is good behaviour – brings along the middle ground Incentives – makes the desired behaviours rewarding – brings along the pragmatists Policy – makes the desired behaviours required – brings along the rest Within libraries, many of us were still developing proper infrastructure and workflows when UK moved forward with its policies – first RC in 2013 and then the announcement from HEFCE in 2014 which came into force in 2016 In a situation where many researchers now view OA as a stick, there’s a whole bit of work still to do in the middle around incentivising and normalising Open
- This lovely quote comes from James Baker, speaking at an event organised by the Library at Sussex on open publishing just a couple of weeks ago This was his answer when I asked him what Universities (especially libraries) should be doing to support researchers to be more open At Sussex (and I’m sure this is in common with many other institutions) what we want to do is move away from open as a stick to open as a carrot
- So how can we create these opportunities for researchers to be more open, and perhaps bridge that gap in the hierarchy between making it easy for people to be open and forcing them through policy. Well we can continue to work on initiatives to embed initiatives such as ORCID within our institutions, and to create more seamless integrations between repositories Continue to work with the community to normalise Open – which is what Beth’s team are doing and what the booksprint initiative is a fantastic example of Put our money where our mouth is and support Open more proactively from within our budgets David W Lewis – Dean of University of Indiana Library – advocated that libraries should allocate 2.5% of their budget on this shift to create a shared open scholarly commons. This initiative obviously has a US focus, but it lays down a gauntlet to all research libraries in terms of allocation of their budgets
- When we thought about this at Sussex we included all the initiatives we contributed to which we felt we could class as Open – this came to around to 2.5 Open Access Memberships to provide discounted or free apcs New more open models for content Membership of collaborative organisations that tackle some of the wider challenges posed by open scholarship Essential parts of the open scholarly communications infrastructure How many of these do we contribute to either directly from our own Library budgets or indirectly through our memberships of other organisations such as Jisc subscription Consider what % of our overall budget that would look like? Is that a valid investment in Open?
- If we compared that list with what we might have been contributing to say 10 years ago – it would be very different There has been a real shift in what libraries are prepared to contribute to – and we are taking a more strategic stance How difficult is this shift to justify when we’re very easily able to compare the cost of a single APC with a contribution to one of these collaborative projects The financial constraints felt by libraries present an opportunity for reprioritisation – instead of funding some of our legacy activities we should now start to redirect our resource to support local and wider Open initiatives
- Brings us on to one such wider initiative – Open publishing How and why we have considered setting up a University of Sussex Press and some of the institutional challenges we have faced Spoiler alert – it has been a marathon rather than a sprint, apols for athletics analogy for this section – fit with Commonwealth games?
- Sussex one of the first UK libraries to move away from subject-based support model and to create a separate team to support the needs of researchers – focal point for Open Access in the institution – organising OA week events and seminars to raise awareness of OA and open data In common with many other institutions, first coordinated approach to OA was prompted by the RCUK and then the HEFCE Open Access policies and we worked with our R&E unit to develop an Institutional statement on Open Access, mandating deposit of accepted manuscripts into our institutional repository, and setting a green first approach to RCUK OA compliance Within the institution Open Publishing was developing in pockets in an ad hoc way Martin Eve set up a postgraduate interdisciplinary journal using OJS Media School set up an open platform the publication and dissemination of their research Uni approached for financial support by one of our physicists who was setting up an ArXiv overlay journal These were isolated activities, there was no sense of direction from the top, and no one was providing any oversight University launched the Sussex Humanities Lab in 2015 – focused on digital scholarship and was by its very nature open
- Pressure from individual researchers who were coming to the library asking for support for OJS, asking for support with creation of DOIs Well aware of a number of other institutions who were providing OJS services and even institutions such as Huddersfield which were launching presses of their own 2016 Library saw this as an opportunity to take an institutional lead in this area and sought agreement from the University’s senior management team to develop a position statement on Open Publishing – - Our arguments for doing this were based on the reputational risk for the institution of continuing to do nothing, and also being able to make a positive contribution to the research environment for the University’s REF submission (neither aspirational) Developed a cross-university group of researchers from different clusters including perspectives from the global south, and business, and led by our visionary Professor of Digital History, Tim Hitchcock
- Flying start? University’s strategy running out, developed back in 2009, no mention of opening up of research, lack of direction and energy from the top Despite discussions we were unable to see how we could get investment in this area – everything stalled Andrew Lockett – University of Westminster Press – Uni Press is a beast which resembles its owner – at that time, the OP Group we didn’t really have a strong enough identity as a University – what was distinctive about us that would make us different from other University Presses that had recently been established In August 2016, University appointed a new VC, Adam Tickell, who developed his own leadership team and started a process of wide consultation to develop a new University strategy in line with the original vision of the University The draft strategy is out – Sussex 20205
- Still in draft form – very exciting for us – getting a really clear message from the Uni leadership team about what what Sussex is, suddenly much more clarity about what our publishing initiative needed to look like Takes us back to that idealistic vision of Open Access as a disruptive innovation
- Now into our stride and it’s much clearer what our Press should look and feel like Not recreating what other publishers or University Presses are already doing very well Challenge and redefining what outputs look-like - Digital-only, multimedia non-linear formats Avoiding replicating the book in digital form – looking to create new forms that you couldn’t put into print even if you wanted to Created a new post within the library (from our existing budget – which goes back to what I was saying about reprioritisation) which will have the capacity to lead on the technical elements of the projects
- Partnership approach – more in line with some of the academic presses within the US, eg Katherine Fitzpatrick Completely embedded within the library – Academic Director – funded from within our budget? All about enhancing the University’s reputation - How we want to be perceived by our local and global community
- Plan – 18 month set upplus project phase Long term strategic initiative requiring significant investment of time, money, resource and expertise, will take a year or two before real progress is made In the meantime what is really important is that we continue to normalise and experiment with Open, and that’s what Beth is going to be talking to us about now.
- I am going to talk about our booksprint experience, and you’ll notice that instead of pictures of professional athletes, I am going to be using pictures of professional researchers. I hope this isn’t too jarring, to warm us up the researchers did oblige with a wonderful shot of some booksprint yoga!
- Ok, this starts with the Sussex Research Hive Scholars, who are a team of three doctoral researchers on a one-year scholarship working to build connections within the Sussex Research community and to offer peer support to doctoral researchers. The Research Hive is a space in the library dedicated for researchers, however this scholarship – supported by a gift from Sage publications- gives the library scope to work with researchers to explore their needs beyond that of the physical space of the library. Each year a new set of scholars bring something new to the Hive. As a self-managing team, they have the freedom to develop their own initiatives and focus on areas that interest them. The scholars support their peers with informal shifts in the Hive space, online through their social media and blog and through various activities and peer-led discussions. Scholar events usually focus on something that appeals to researchers across all disciplines- discussions about surviving your viva are always popular, or how to manage your supervisor and almost every year the scholars have been keen to think and talk about publishing. The why’s and how’s of balancing publication midway through a doctorate are things many research students are thinking about. In 2017 the scholars wanted to do something different- they wanted to think about publication in a more practical way. They wanted to run a booksprint.
- A booksprint is a collaborative writing activity that is strictly timeboxed, high pressure and high stress. The aim is to get a substantial piece of writing completed from initial concept to publication in just a few days. We were already familiar with the book sprint concept at Sussex. Professor of Digital Humanities David Berry has been involved in two booksprints, the second of which is about the booksprint process itself. In 2016 Professor Berry had come to a research hive event on ‘Alternative Approaches to Publishing’ to share his experiences with booksprints. He talked about this innovative approach to writing as a way to open up collaboration opportunities for researchers, and to reimagine the timeframes involved with traditional publication. This inspired the research hive scholars- who were keen to explore the concept for doctoral and early career researchers who have great research ideas and who often do feel a pressure to publish but who equally do not the time to commit to writing a book.
- The Research Hive Scholars began planning their booksprint First came the logistics- the things needed to make the sprint work- rooms on campus, catering, a realistic time frame. Plus, the things needed to deliver a completed book- what software would they use, how can you work collaboratively, do we need isbns and doi numbers? To answer these questions the scholars did a lot of research working with the library- reading about other booksprints, contacting companies who provide booksprint facilitation, testing out various tools. They also thought about the scope of the project -what would the book be about? How would they divide up writing and reviewing activities? Who will the authors be and how will they be recruited? Finally, there were unexpected questions that arose through the planning process that were absolutely essential - how would we make the authors comfortable? Should we go for high energy health food or high sugar junk food? Should there be scheduled relaxation time? How would we tackle writers block? And, could there ever be enough coffee?
- Seven authors – from different disciplines were selected for a four day booksprint in summer 2017. Each author would compose a chapter on the topic of home. Authors would read and review each other's work. The fantastic Dr Catherine Pope agreed to facilitate the sprint: she would be present throughout- motivating the authors, structuring the writing activities and generally keep everyone on schedule. The book would be written using Booktype, a subscription based writing platform that supports authors and editors creating books. The software would enable the authors to review each other’s work and format a professional publication for immediate distribution online. The final collection of essays would be published as an e-book on Sussex Research Online.
- everyone was rather apprehensive at first. But they were quick off the mark as soon as the starting pistols fired. Day one involved brainstorming concepts, developing ideas into sketches, then critiquing each other’s ideas. Given the time constraints, this was achieved mainly through silent debate, using Post-It notes and stickers for voting. A wall of post its became the collective brain and helped the authors keep focus By the afternoon authors were outlining their chapters and starting to write
- At the end of day one- the authors had an opportunity to review each other’s work. Before disappearing home for some well-earned rest
- After the highly structured format of the first day, the Authors suddenly felt more exposed, but they quickly found their stride. Day two was for writing – and lots of it. The room was buzzing with the sound of high speed typing By the end of the afternoon, they all had a substantial chunk of writing. Day Three was more intense. Writing and reviewing. The pressure might have increased, but the authors were motivated and (mostly) confident of success. By this time the group of authors had developed excellent team spirit, with lots of mutual support and encouragement. No one was sprinting alone- this was a relay race.
- As the finish line loomed on the final day there was so much that needed to happen. The Authors were initially relaxed, all convinced they’d easily meet the midday writing deadline. But as the giant timer counted down, the tension rose. One by one, there were shrieks of triumph as the Authors completed their chapters. They couldn’t relax yet. Limber from the writing they had to work together to produce the introduction and conclusion, while Library staff began a marathon of formatting and proofreading.
- At 7pm on the fourth day- the authors were able to press publish. Medals were awarded, and the celebrations began. The book is called: Beyond the boundaries of home: interdisciplinary approaches It is shared on our institutional repository and has been downloaded over 230 times in the past year Each chapter has its own doi and is shared under a creative commons license.
- Despite all the preparations, the authors still faced a number of hurdles. Most booksprints are ‘extractive’ - participants are disgorging what they already know about a topic. However, in this sprint the authors were hugely ambitious- setting out to generate new content. In some cases, researching as they wrote. This increased the risk of intellectual burn out or writer’s block. Usually, in a traditional booksprint, chapters are co-authored: meaning everyone gets involved in every chapter. Due to the disciplinary differences and range of backgrounds, this wasn’t an option for the authors. This did make it easier for authors to build momentum with their individual project, it also made them feel more vulnerable. It is abundantly clear exactly who has written each chapter. And while each chapter was reviewed by another author, the diverse range of disciplines represented meant it was not possible to develop a robust peer-review process. The software also presented challenges. Booktype was perfect for producing the book, however the Authors initially struggled with the unfamiliar workflows of collaborative writing and were at times let down by frustratingly slow internet connection.
- Inevitably, there were blips and panics throughout the process but this was a hugely successful booksprint. By overcoming procrastination and perfectionism, the Authors were able to go the distance and achieve more than they’d thought possible. The authors were invited to share their reflections on the booksprint process- which are included in the book. All the authors felt that the experience was exhausting but highly rewarding, with a visible output giving them publication, as both authors and editors on an interdisciplinary project. For some researchers, particularly those in STEM fields, interdisciplinary opportunities can be very rare. For our authors, the range of disciplines represented, and the collaborative writing experience was extremely enriching, and this provided an opportunity to explore a new way of working. The experience exposed an issue of time scales that perhaps uniquely affect doctoral and early career researchers. Rich in research ideas but time poor and, unlike many senior academics, they often lack the institutional security that makes it possible to commit to a 2 or 3 year book project.
- The booksprint experience also prompted our Authors to reconsider their publication strategy. (5 seconds) [DRINK SOME WATER] For the researchers we worked with, this was not explicitly an exercise in ‘open’ – most of our authors applied because they were excited about the idea of a book sprint that would lead to a publication, with the support that the library and the Sussex Research Hive could offer them in the process. But the experience clearly prompted them to consider the tensions around open. Supporting researchers means supporting open, and to do so we need to be Open to experimenting. As practitioners, we have a wealth of expertise and knowledge around these issues, which we need to communicate to researchers. However, we also need to be open to listening and working together with researchers to support their publication agendas. If we think back to Joanna’s introduction and the ways that we might approach changing a research culture, this booksprint allowed us to build knowledge of open within our research community, and to normalise open practices. This case study shows the value of experimenting and talking with researchers – it doesn’t have to be policy-led, it can be experimental and experiential, we just need the confidence to take risks and try new approaches to working. …
- And with that in mind, we would like you to join us in a short collaborative writing experiment, reflecting on open publishing at your own institutions. Either individually, or in small groups, navigate to this URL, where you will be able to contribute to our collaborative document [SHOW ETHERPAD] [DIVIDE ROOM UP DEPENDING ON SIZE] You can add new content, or edit the work of others. We’ve only got a few minutes, so it’s also a mini-sprint! [reflect on answers as they show] We will share your comments… [TBC] Link to etherpad 2 for the second workshop https://beta.etherpad.org/p/sprint2